Jump to content

UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

If you impose a Zero tariff regime, then prefered nation clause under WTO rules kicks in. So you would open the floodgates to products from everywhere. This would kill the farming and manufacturing (what is left of it) sectors in the UK. So if you want to blow up your entire economy to shift the blame to the ROI, then, that is ofc entirely up to you. But you should at least be aware of the drawbacks.

My actual point is that demanding a country carves out part of its territory and hands it over to someone else's jurisdiction in terms of customs and some economic/social regulation touches on national honour, and is unlikely to be accepted. From Ireland's point of view this is potentially self-defeating, as they need to avoid a hard Brexit as much as the UK does. 

In response to the stuff you said that you thought addressed what I said, but really didn't, I respond;

The WTO doesn't work like the EU but more like the UN. If the UK refused to impose checks specifically on the NI border someone could take us to court for it, but that would take a few years and we could argue it was necessary for national security reasons (article 21). 

Anyway, I am not arguing that implementing the Brexiteer economic plan would be good for the UK economy, I don't particularly think it would be, although I think you are exaggerating the overall effects of a low tariff regime; it would be bad for certain sectors, it may not be bad for the economy as a whole.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

My actual point is that demanding a country carves out part of its territory and hands it over to someone else's jurisdiction in terms of customs and some economic/social regulation touches on national honour, and is unlikely to be accepted.

Let us know when that happens. In the meantime, can we return to what's happening in Ireland?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

for the time in history it's raining man Ireland has the stronger hand and leverage over the UK. So I have my money on, this is not gonna end well for the UK.

It's hilarious, or it would be, if it weren't so much part and parcel and cause of this preposterous mess that the BREXIT hard right white supremacists made themselves, and which is destroying all their economic and social sectors -- that THEY ARE BLAMING IT ON THE IRISH!  It's totally theirs to own, they made it, they did, and they are blaming the Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It's hilarious, or it would be, if it weren't so much part and parcel and cause of this preposterous mess that the BREXIT hard right white supremacists made themselves, and which is destroying all their economic and social sectors -- that THEY ARE BLAMING IT ON THE IRISH!  It's totally theirs to own, they made it, they did, and they are blaming the Irish.

Hmm. I didn’t understand your last comment on the UK thread and I don’t understand this one.

If you are going to throw around terms like ‘white supremacists’ then you’d better hope to god you can back it up. 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Let us know when that happens. In the meantime, can we return to what's happening in Ireland?

 

A border between NI and the British mainland is something that has been suggested , basically breaking the country apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think the argument is more that the EU is a closed protectionist economy that is heavily regulated and imposes heavy tariffs on external trade. Those who are pro-Brexit suggest that by leaving such a protectionist state and opening up free trade to the world, reducing tariffs and creating trade deals with other major nations (nations the EU has so far been unable to agree trade deals with due to its complexity) they can offset the loss from leaving the EU and actually do far better outside of it. 

Indeed. However, no firm plans or details have been put forward on how to achieve this.

Left unsaid: achieving such deals with countries like the USA and China may involve reducing our food health standards below those we are currently comfortable with, and allowing the massive undercutting of native industries and thus their destruction, with no plans on how to replace them.

 

Quote

 

Well farmers are currently subsidised based on the amount of land they cultivate, and tends to favour larger farms. There is definitely room to improve the CAP, and you could say that all it tends to do is prop up inefficiency and doesn't benefit the UK much

 

The French farming industry is massively propped up much more than the UK one under the CAP. Nevertheless, without EU subsidies being maintained by the UK government, our native farming industry will almost certainly be completely destroyed post-Brexit in favour of letting in lowest-common-denominator, poor-quality food from the United States (among others). This will ensure the UK's native farming industry will not be able to compete.

 

Quote

Why would Brexit affect your ability to hire quality IT workers? Most of the talk seems to be around reducing low paid EU workers and implementing more of a Australia style system. Plus there is the rest of the world to hire from. I think the worries about this are hugely overblown.

 

GDPR is a large issue revolving around this and how the UK will interact with GDPR post-Brexit remains up in the air. Companies like Google and Facebook will prefer countries not to have GDPR legislation, and will be lobbying hard for Britain to withdraw from GDPR compliance post-Brexit. This is one issue where EU workers may prefer to relocate to the EU where the situation will be much clearer.

 

Quote

 

Tbh, the sensible arguments for Brexit were all about opting out of further EU integration, and preserving the UK against absorption into an EU superstate. It also addressed concerns over runaway mass immigration, although I suspect immigration from outside the EU was actually more unpopular and the concerns got conflated. The global Britain case was, in my view, always weak. 

 

Yes, Britain has always been sceptical of the idea of a federal EU superstate and has acted, with its veto and its position as the bloc's second most-powerful country (with an improved position due to its close ties with countries such as Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands and Italy, and in financial matters Germany) to stop that from happening and opposing a Franco-German hegemony over the EU (helped by Hollande coming on board and being a fruit loop).

We have now, obviously, abdicated that position and given France and Germany a green light to do what the fuck they want with Europe.

 

Quote

 

Not totally true. The current corner is due in some part to a conscious decision by the EU to back Irish desires to play hardball on the border. 

 This will either end very well, or very badly for Ireland. 

 

The European Union has decided to back the requirements of a key and important member (the Republic of Ireland) against those of an abdicating and departing member (the UK). This is wholly unsurprising.

The European Union has also taken the view that the UK is taking the piss over the order with its lack of planning and general lack of vision in dealing with the issue (despite having a quarter of a decade to come up with a plan, and with the Brexit-supporting wing of the Tories for having over 25 years to come up with an alternative plan), and as such the UK can go fuck itself with its self-importance and arrogance versus the requirements of the Republic of Ireland, a key ally and contributor.

The United Kingdom has, many times, abused the Irish people and committed acts of genocide against it, to the tune of millions dead and millions more effectively exiled. The UK should not be surprised that, with no lives on the line, the Republic of Ireland is past giving two shits about the UK.

The UK's position on the border issue is ignorant, arrogant, untenable and will be wholly defeated.

Quote

 

Not so. The problem for the Irish is that it ending badly for the UK also means it ends badly for Ireland. It can't end in no-deal for the UK without that being a very bad result for Ireland, far more so than it being bad for France and Germany.

 The UK could simply refuse to impose regulatory or customs checks on its side of the Irish border in the event of a no-deal but Ireland can't. It's internal market is much smaller than the UK's; its prosperity depends on the EU single market; that's why all the big multinationals are there. France won't allow Brazillian beef to be imported into the UK and then find its way to France via Ireland. Ireland would be kicked out of the single market, in effect, if it didn't impose customs and regulatory checks at the NI border. 

 

Wholly and profoundly incorrect.

Under WTO rules, the UK cannot refuse to impose regulatory controls on the EU and Ireland without also refusing to impose regulatory controls on the rest of the world, meaning it will have to let in inferior quality food from the USA, lead-rich toys from other parts of the world and unchecked foodstuffs from Africa and Asia.

This is why a hard border will be put in place on the RoI/Northern Ireland land border or in the Irish Sea, to the detriment of the UK. The Republic will be protected as much as possible (I wouldn't be surprised to see further subsidies put in place for Ireland - which should be affordable once the enormous financial cost to the EU of the subsidies to the UK are removed - and already plans are being put in place for new import and ferry routes from France and Spain direct to Ireland, completely bypassing the UK).

Ireland, lest we forget, is a country which suffered millions dead due to UK policies less than four generations ago, and has never forgotten it (despite it being ignored in UK schools). Although Ireland is an ally of the UK far past the point of what would considered by reasonable in this situation, they are not going to shed too many tears of the UK committing economic and social suicide by its own choice.

 

Quote

 

A border between NI and the British mainland is something that has been suggested , basically breaking the country apart.

 

Indeed. However, Brexiters have been clear that losing Scotland and Northern Ireland is a price worth paying for Brexit. When this happens, I expect no tears to be shed or complaints to be made, as they will be massively hypocritical, and of course hypocrisy and a refusal to deal with the logical consequences of their decisions are foreign concepts to the hard right of the Conservative Party (cough).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The European Union has decided to back the requirements of a key and important member (the Republic of Ireland) against those of an abdicating and departing member (the UK). This is wholly unsurprising.

The European Union has also taken the view that the UK is taking the piss over the order with its lack of planning and general lack of vision in dealing with the issue (despite having a quarter of a decade to come up with a plan, and with the Brexit-supporting wing of the Tories for having over 25 years to come up with an alternative plan), and as such the UK can go fuck itself with its self-importance and arrogance versus the requirements of the Republic of Ireland, a key ally and contributor. 

The United Kingdom has, many times, abused the Irish people and committed acts of genocide against it, to the tune of millions dead and millions more effectively exiled. The UK should not be surprised that, with no lives on the line, the Republic of Ireland is past giving two shits about the UK.

The UK's position on the border issue is ignorant, arrogant, untenable and will be wholly defeated.

 

Well, tbf, the UK government's position is the backstop, but for a variety of reasons it won't wash with Parliament as the moment.

The UK leaves the EU without any deal whatsoever by automatic process of law at 11pm 29 March next year. Avoiding this requires someone to do something. If no one does Ireland will have overreached and its policy will backfire; it will bring about the result it was aiming to avoid. Both the UK and ROI will suffer because of this. 

 

48 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Wholly and profoundly incorrect.

Under WTO rules, the UK cannot refuse to impose regulatory controls on the EU and Ireland without also refusing to impose regulatory controls on the rest of the world, meaning it will have to let in inferior quality food from the USA, lead-rich toys from other parts of the world and unchecked foodstuffs from Africa and Asia. 

This is why a hard border will be put in place on the RoI/Northern Ireland land border or in the Irish Sea, to the detriment of the UK. The Republic will be protected as much as possible (I wouldn't be surprised to see further subsidies put in place for Ireland - which should be affordable once the enormous financial cost to the EU of the subsidies to the UK are removed - and already plans are being put in place for new import and ferry routes from France and Spain direct to Ireland, completely bypassing the UK). 

 

If the UK did give specific consideration to the Ni/ROI border someone would have to bring a case against us for treating them unfairly, which may or may not succeed given the UK could cite national security concerns. So it is not obvious the UK would not be able to do this. 

In any case though, it is true the ROI will be required to put up a border, either between NI and ROI or between ROI and the rest of the EU. The real issue is whether this has to be so hard that it would, in spirit, violate the GFA and lead to the return of violence. It is far from obvious putting the border in the Irish Sea is the sensible solution here; better would be ensuring the border would be as frictionless as possible and giving a greater role to the Irish government in the affairs of NI (as already allowed, as far back as the 1985 agreement). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The UK leaves the EU without any deal whatsoever by automatic process of law at 11pm 29 March next year. Avoiding this requires someone to do something. If no one does Ireland will have overreached and its policy will backfire; it will bring about the result it was aiming to avoid. Both the UK and ROI will suffer because of this. 

Wholly incorrect.

The United Kingdom is the one choosing to leaving the European Union and the responsibility for managing this is wholly on the UK's shoulders. The UK will have been the one to overreach and will suffer the consequences.

Whilst the Republic of Ireland cannot avoid some issues and problems in the short term, the EU will take steps to protect it against the worst consequences of the reckless, arrogant and ignorant policies of its overreaching neighbour, and in the long term the RoI will benefit considerably from being the largest and most notable English-speaking country within the EU and will become a logical choice as the bridge between the USA and EU, sidelining the increasingly irrelevant UK altogether.

Quote

 

In any case though, it is true the ROI will be required to put up a border, either between NI and ROI or between ROI and the rest of the EU. The real issue is whether this has to be so hard that it would, in spirit, violate the GFA and lead to the return of violence. It is far from obvious putting the border in the Irish Sea is the sensible solution here; better would be ensuring the border would be as frictionless as possible and giving a greater role to the Irish government in the affairs of NI (as already allowed, as far back as the 1985 agreement). 

 

Indeed. The United Kingdom is indeed attempting to breach both the spirit and the legal requirements of the Good Friday Agreement by actions it has itself initiated. However, the responsibility for this lies with the United Kingdom and absolutely no other entity, and it is up to the UK government to propose a solution. So far, no practical solution has been forthcoming.

The attempts to blame the consequences of this on the Republic of Ireland by certain members of the Conservative government, who have as much knowledge of the intricacies of the Irish border situation as a badger does of methane deposits on the eastern hemisphere of Saturn's moon Titan, are farcically ignorant and eminently ignorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

Wholly incorrect.

The United Kingdom is the one choosing to leaving the European Union and the responsibility for managing this is wholly on the UK's shoulders. The UK will have been the one to overreach and will suffer the consequences.

No I am right. Unless someone does something, like ratify the withdrawal treaty, or ask for art.50 to be extended, it is no-deal on 29 March 2019 with all that entails.

 

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Whilst the Republic of Ireland cannot avoid some issues and problems in the short term, the EU will take steps to protect it against the worst consequences of the reckless, arrogant and ignorant policies of its overreaching neighbour, and in the long term the RoI will benefit considerably from being the largest and most notable English-speaking country within the EU and will become a logical choice as the bridge between the USA and EU, sidelining the increasingly irrelevant UK altogether.

Indeed. The United Kingdom is indeed attempting to breach both the spirit and the legal requirements of the Good Friday Agreement by actions it has itself initiated. However, the responsibility for this lies with the United Kingdom and absolutely no other entity, and it is up to the UK government to propose a solution. So far, no practical solution has been forthcoming.

The attempts to blame the consequences of this on the Republic of Ireland by certain members of the Conservative government, who have as much knowledge of the intricacies of the Irish border situation as a badger does of methane deposits on the eastern hemisphere of Saturn's moon Titan, are farcically ignorant and eminently ignorable.

Well, if you push a policy designed to avoid a certain outcome and yet that policy actually ends up making the outcome more likely, you might also share some responsibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The UK is closer to the US and India than New Zealand is to Japan. New Zealand's closest neighbour, Australia, is further away (defined by a direct flight from Auckland to Sydney) than London is to Helsinki.

One thing that gets overlooked here is how isolated we are here.

Isn't that so the peoples of Middle Earth never find Valinor again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the meantime all you all who think you can blame Ireland for your BREXIT idiocy trials and tribulations -- just soze u all noze: the outgoing disgraced rethug/ayanrandist/fascist/idiot Paul Ryan, once Speaker of the House of Representatives in the US Congress, is spending all his time as the outgoing, no-longer member of the Congress, signing thousands of visas to let Irish into the US . . . .  That's how much faith there is in BREXIT, instituted or not, there is over here.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/speaker-paul-ryan-pushing-through-thousands-of-irish-visas-before-leaving-office_us_5c154703e4b009b8aea7c0fa

https://www.bustle.com/p/paul-ryans-irish-immigration-bill-is-drawing-criticism-after-he-previously-blocked-reform-15532092

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/16/after-enabling-trumps-anti-immigration-policies-paul-ryan-makes-exception-immigrants

This is what all you all are going to be left with: another nation as cray cray, dysfunctional and downright stupid as yourselves.  We in the USA are indeed the children of Britain.  And don't think the US will be kind to you all, anymore than you all will be kind to us.  The rest of the world is already laughing itself silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More blithering about why a second referendum would be anti-democratic from the PM:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46586673

It would 'break faith'! Except who has any faith left? It would divide us! Except that we're already divided and much as Mrs May might wish it, we're not going to unify behind her vision of Brexit. That's slightly less likely than a meteor strike, if nothing changes. It would convince people that democracy cannot deliver! Except that on this topic, manifestly democracy cannot presently deliver an agreed outcome, so it's less 'convincing' and more 'recognising'. Plus of course if there's a better solution to 'democacy can't deliver' than 'let's try more democracy' I'd quite like to hear it. 

In other news, more in my particular wheelhouse, the ONS has decided to ignore the financial chicanery around how student loans are accounted for:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46591500

This is likely to put reform of student support back on the agenda, once we can actually have a political agenda other than 'how do we get out of this mess?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corbyn is going to table a vote of no confidence in May  not the government


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46586673

Quote

 

But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would table a motion of no confidence in the PM for delaying the vote.

He told the Commons it was unacceptable that MPs had to wait another month before having their say on Mrs May's deal. He added the PM had "led the country into a national crisis".

Mr Corbyn's motion - due to be tabled on Tuesday - calls on MPs to declare they have "no confidence in the prime minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away" on the Brexit deal.

It focuses on Mrs May personally, rather than the government.

BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg said that while the motion - if successful - could not end in the collapse of the government, "it would be another embarrassment for the PM if Labour ends up winning the day".

 

erm  did we not just have one lead by the JRM and co?    What effect will this have if this is vote on May not the Government?  I do not understand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No I am right. Unless someone does something, like ratify the withdrawal treaty, or ask for art.50 to be extended, it is no-deal on 29 March 2019 with all that entails.

Weak argumentative stance. As was immediately and intuitively clear to even the most casual observer, I was referring to your argument that the Republic of Ireland has "overreached" in some vague and non-specific fashion. I accept your capitulation on that point, however.

 

Quote

 

erm  did we not just have one lead by the JRM and co?    What effect will this have if this is vote on May not the Government?  I do not understand.

 

It kicks the can down the road. If JRM tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, he will be defeated: the DUP and the Tory rebels will vote in favour of the government. Labour will then have to adopt the back-up plan (agreed at conference) to being campaigning for a second referendum on the basis of Remain, which is now more likely. Corbyn does not want to do this.

Tabling a Parliamentary vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister could see the DUP and the Tory rebels join Labour, the SNP, independents and LibDems. Although it has no legal or constitutional power, this would be a personal (and possibly unprecedented) humiliation for May. May might feel she has to resign, triggering a Conservative leadership campaign and meaning that Brexit is more likely to proceed.

Corbyn's plan, in as much as there seems to be one, is to let the Tories carry the can for Brexit and its consequences, he then sweeps into power afterwards and picks up the pieces with the UK safely outside the EU and its restrictive legislation on things like nationalisation of utilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Pebble said:

erm  did we not just have one lead by the JRM and co?    

That was a challenge to May’s leadership of the Conservative party, this, so far as I understand, is just a potential motion by the House of Commons.

 

17 minutes ago, Pebble said:

What effect will this have if this is vote on May not the Government?  I do not understand.

 

Probably nothing significant given how undermined May’s position already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pebble said:

Corbyn is going to table a vote of no confidence in May  not the government


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46586673

erm  did we not just have one lead by the JRM and co?    What effect will this have if this is vote on May not the Government?  I do not understand.

 

One can only speculate. I'm guessing the idea is to tempt the hard Brexiteers into voting against her, in the hopes of getting her to resign, and so getting a second chance at getting one of their own in? Leading to Tory infighting that Labour can take advantage of, maybe even following up with a NC motion in the government when the dust clears, in hopes that the defeated faction would rather bring down the whole house?

Or maybe the idea is to force those same people into voting for her this time? That would be a real Pyrrhic victory. Labour could hammer home the narrative that the Tories are hypocrites who care only for power. But that works better with a vote of No Confidence in the government, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

One can only speculate. I'm guessing the idea is to tempt the hard Brexiteers into voting against her, in the hopes of getting her to resign, and so getting a second chance at getting one of their own in?

But May's job seems to be enduring humiliation over and over again, and forging on.  Why would this time be different?  I can't understand a strategy that seems aimed at getting May to resign.  It seems to me that her main accomplishment as PM is the fact that she's still PM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Pebble said:

Corbyn is going to table a vote of no confidence in May  not the government

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46586673

erm  did we not just have one lead by the JRM and co?    What effect will this have if this is vote on May not the Government?  I do not understand.

It does seem like more of a political stunt rather than something that's actually going to achieve anything concrete. I suppose if she loses she might feel she has to resign, but I'm not sure having everything pause for a Tory leadership contest is really what we need at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like playing to the gallery, trying to show that he's doing something, whilst not risking anything that would actually rock the boat.

Listening to him this afternoon, I thought he was going to table a full no confidence vote today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

Or maybe the idea is to force those same people into voting for her this time? That would be a real Pyrrhic victory. Labour could hammer home the narrative that the Tories are hypocrites who care only for power. But that works better with a vote of No Confidence in the government, really.

ANd it would work much better of Corbyn was not doing the exact same thing. I am still curious for how much longer he will be able to string remain voters along. In that very narrow sense he is indeed playing a blinder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...